IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v49y1999i11p1529-1539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public

Author

Listed:
  • Ryynänen, Olli-Pekka
  • Myllykangas, Markku
  • Kinnunen, Juha
  • Takala, Jorma

Abstract

The aim of this postal questionnaire study was to measure attitudes to health care prioritisation criteria among the Finnish general public (n=1156), politicians (n=1096), doctors (n=803) and nurses (n=667), altogether 3722 subjects. The questionnaire consisted of questions on background data, a list of seven alternative prioritisation methods and a list of 11 possible criteria for health care prioritisation. The most acceptable prioritisation methods were increased treatment fees and restricting expensive treatments and examinations. Only a few supported administrative prioritisation decisions. One third of the general public indicated that they did not accept any limitations in health care, whereas only 5% of doctors agreed with them. More doctors accepted prioritisation methods than respondents in other groups. Patient is a child, patient is an elderly person, severity of the disease and prognosis of the disease were the most accepted prioritisation criteria. Politicians and the general public also accepted self-induced nature of disease and patient's wealth as prioritisation crieteria. Logistic regression analysis of the general public respondents demonstrated that male gender, higher education and higher personal income were associated with acceptance of most prioritisation criteria. Similarly, older age of the respondent was associated with acceptance of self-induced nature of disease and patient's wealth as prioritisation criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryynänen, Olli-Pekka & Myllykangas, Markku & Kinnunen, Juha & Takala, Jorma, 1999. "Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(11), pages 1529-1539, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:11:p:1529-1539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00222-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jana Rogge & Bernhard Kittel, 2016. "Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Valentina Nino & David Claudio & Christie Schiel & Brendan Bellows, 2020. "Coupling Wearable Devices and Decision Theory in the United States Emergency Department Triage Process: A Narrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Mak, Benise & Woo, Jean & Bowling, Ann & Wong, Florens & Chau, Pui Hing, 2011. "Health care prioritization in ageing societies: Influence of age, education, health literacy and culture," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 219-233.
    4. Jeannette Winkelhage & Adele Diederich, 2012. "The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Jonathan Karnon & Nawab Qizilbash, 2001. "Economic evaluation alongside n‐of‐1 trials: getting closer to the margin," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 79-82, January.
    6. Adele Diederich & Joffre Swait & Norman Wirsik, 2012. "Citizen Participation in Patient Prioritization Policy Decisions: An Empirical and Experimental Study on Patients' Characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-10, May.
    7. Gill, Betty & Griffin, Barbara & Hesketh, Beryl, 2013. "Changing expectations concerning life-extending treatment: The relevance of opportunity cost," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 66-73.
    8. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    9. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2004. "Investigating the social value of health changes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1101-1116, November.
    10. David L.B. Schwappach, 2003. "Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 255-267, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:11:p:1529-1539. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.